How to move release out of release group

releasegroup
release
mistake
Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f2a0020e500> #<Tag:0x00007f2a0020e320> #<Tag:0x00007f2a0020e118>

#1

See release group Images of the Dream and Death by Ákos Rózmann. Tripping along here, I just added the 1991 2CD release wrongly to the then present 2013 3LP release. Realizing my mistake (the 2 releases being based on different renditions of the same EAM work, see edit note) I wonder: Is there a way to break out the CD entry to its own release (group)?


#2

I’m not convinced that it should be a separate release group?
Have the songs been re-recorded? Even if so, I still think it constitutes as a ‘different version of the same album’ (which I would expect to be in the same release group).


#3

It is an EAM work, rendered in different studio sessions. CD version times in at 1h 37m 3s, LP version “unabridged” at 2h 2m 53s.


#4

Putting aside the question of “should this release be moved?”, yes, there is a way to move it.

  1. Create a new release group (EditingAdd Release Group). In this case, you’d probably want to add a disambiguation comment.
    1.1. before moving to the next step, copy the URL for the newly-created release group.

  2. Navigate to the page for the release that is to be moved and click the “Edit” tab.

  3. In the release editor, edit the “Release Group” field so that it points to your newly-created release group.
    3.1. Your new release group may not be indexed yet (which means the search field will not be able to find it). You can paste the URL (from step 1.1.) into the field to bypass the search.


#5

[quote=“Griomo, post:3, topic:173104, full:true”]
It is an EAM work, rendered in different studio sessions. CD version times in at 1h 37m 3s, LP version “unabridged” at 2h 2m 53s.[/quote]
I think as a user I would expect these to be grouped together. Discogs groups them as well (for what it’s worth)


#6

Good enough then. I had the notion of classical releases sorting stricter than pop, but even so the grey zone of EAM renditions, be they based on identical or different concrète raw material, notation &/or processing, is at the same time fuzzy enough not to fuzz about and small enough to focus on. I will keep as is, adding annotation & disambiguation. Thank you for keeping perspective.

Ahaa… This will not be done here, but is very informative for a newcomer, implying further URL use in editing. Will save and seek. Thank you too.


#7

I don’t know what EAM means but when a band does a live recording or even a new studio recording of an album to commemorate an anniversary, a kind of self-cover, release groups are not the same, IMO, than the original albums.


#8

It all hinges on human factor as opposed to automated processing (to this or that extent, at composition and performance respectively), what MB consider constitutes a work (→ release (group)), and MB Style Guidelines. EAM (Electro-Acoustic Music, for a somewhat out-dated acronym being favoured over less known likes) may be said to encompass a wide spectrum of classical composition venturing beyond live playing of conventionally notated compositions on conventional instruments, outto rimming the outer boundary of music defined: ‘sound organization’, historically stepping from collage of recorded natural sounds, via electronic generation and transformation of sounds, to pure synthezised raw material. With conventional notation obviously not viable anymore, one substitutes the kinds of diagrams and schematics proper for executing the automated processes; which leaves the MB editor pondering over (goto 20) what MB consider constitutes a work, and MB Style Guidelines.

I reckon it a conditionary cluster the kind of which Cage, Duchamp & ceteri conceptualists found at their same time so hilariously provocative to the presupposing audiences (be they white tie, but still more often blue jean presupposing what is white; underdog elitism, that is). Back to MB, you can have a physical person perform, record and release a single setlist under conditions here set to clarify some fuzz:
• Different recording setups for 1 session
• Identical recording setups for 2 sessions
• A setlist done twice, the second time switched to other instruments (specimen or species)
• …

There is really no definite difference from conventional performance in EAM acoustic end result dependence on equipment for playback or pre-process (which equals to the usual differences between conventional interpreters, performers and their equipment, thus being a mere next step in as organical as logical advance), nor the composer’s exactness or idiom of notation (dito). Neither is MB CSG as laid down deficit, but dependent on usability and user ability, to which end other more experienced eyes are of great help. I have not the time to delve into MB meta considerations deep enough for a satisfactory own account, but am happy to just conform to any reasonably given guideline. (That said, I confess to yet having done no votes and few relations (work, recording, credit), hoping those blank fields next to what has been filled-in be seen not as presupposition of others’ effort.)


#9

Please keep in mind that many of the humans here speak English as a second language. :slight_smile: (They do, for the most part, speak better English I do. I blame Califonia public schools!)

So, do I understand this correctly? There is no “performance” per se. The music is generated from an instruction set, and the newer release was generated from an updated set on different equipment?

If that’s the case, my gut says to treat these as separate “performances” and to use two release groups.

Great write-up though. I dug it.


#10

Sorry to say I do too.

That is an open question, at MB maybe closed. An EAM performance may range from improvisation by a live person on live electronics (also utilizing whatever physical objects at hand) to a mere ‘press PLAY’ with everything from conception of the work up to concert point (yes, with audience before or surrounded by ‘just’ loudspeakers galore) worked out with exactly the same care for result as ever.

I do not know this case, and the liner notes would be a mess to state details.
• 3rd version (CD 1991): Composed & produced by Ákos Rózmann at EMS, Stockholm 1990.4.
• 4th version (LP 2013): “Unabridged”, “revised at EMS/Elektronmusikstudion, Stockholm 2001 for a performance in Essen [Germany …] Composed & produced by Ákos Rózmann” with some assistance from Mats Lindström: “[Rózmann] was himself in charge at the mixer at the premiere, but was very unhappy with the result. Rózmann refused to be present at his own concerts as a rule, and would rely on me to take care of the performance. […] I went to the performance in Essen in his stead and before I left, we went through the piece in detail in the studio.”

Rózmann, for the 4th version, expanded from whatever material could lend itself from the 3rd version; but we do not know the state of this material (The CD release to just add to? Recorded tracks from that master, in any middle state of processing? Raw recorded sounds with written instructions, to begin anew?), thus cannot tell to what extent the 4th version is another 3rd, or an other. I am guessing the per se material was done by Rózmann alone as usual and, content with that but not the concert circumstances, instructed Lindström on how best to effect the piece (in-place mixer equipment, accompanying light effects) at the performance.

So, we should be looking at
• expansion by the composer, to 4th and final revision of a work.
• circumstantial tweaking by remote assistant; which may be of interest since classical works are often understood as ‘created’ through 1st performance – but, on the other hand, who may possibly be excused thanks to a little bold preposition here: “This recording is the 4th version of Images of the Dream and Death; revised at EMS/Elektronmusikstudion, Stockholm 2001 for a performance in Essen”. I think not too much read into it, that the work was done, revised and recorded before the Essen performance. (Probably the Stockholm master was performed in Germany with channels open for better mixing, a slight difference.)

And so, how to follow CSG here still hinges on human factor: I do not know.


#11

Haha. You speak Academese with no detectable accent![quote=“Griomo, post:10, topic:173104”]
classical works are often understood as ‘created’ through 1st performance
[/quote]

Ah.

If the question is “should these releases be in the same release group?”, the work (composition) is not the deciding factor. To determine when releases belong in the same group, ask “are these releases different editions of the same album?” This is not a CSG-specific question.

IMO, if the instruction set was substantially changed and the recording made at a different time, this is not the same “album”. But I admit, EAM might be a special case.


#12

Maybe this topic should be renamed to “EAM”.
I don’t understand a-ny-thing at all. :confused:


#13

Not the first among endangered species to meet with support, but ah well …

My understanding of MB lingo and lines is a bit newblurry, so I tried a twin approach. So, argumenting that we have
3rd version (90 min)
4th version (120 min); essentially the 3rd version plus new material, also re-use of 3rd:s front cover art
– should MB consider them different albums? Composer’s final cut?

Or “Exceptional Artistic Mess”. We probably understand each different half making this a problem.


#14

Anyway, the initial question was very clear to me. :slight_smile:
If you want to move a release out of its release group, edit the release and type some name in the release group field then either choose an existing release group or select create new at the bottom of the search list popup.


#15

That simple? I will probably do some test edits, and appreciate the difficulties involved with sandbox features enough to not miss it here. Thanks.


#16

Another thing to know:
In all those entity (work, artist, release, etc.) search fields, if you paste a URL, it will skip the search and select that entity at once.
It is very convenient.


Now I realise that @CallerNo6 did already say exactly that in between two huge walls of EAM text. :smiley:


#17

Oh, @CallerNo6:s Howtoëse had a grunge to it I could not really make out, so thanks again for clearing that up.


#18

If you make test edits in the live database and end up making duplicate entities, please merge them rather than delete them. :slight_smile:


#19

Will do, but aim at simplicate. I dare say to have exceptional grip on own fields of mostly classical music, and a fairly good one on database principles, but am new to their application at MB. My sandbox is outlined with yellow tape, right in the town square (that is, an own collection of entries to go over back and forth).